D.A. Carson in "Exegetical Fallacies" p. 28 Wrote:One of the most enduring errors, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word. How many times have we been told that because the verbal cognate of apostolos (apostle) is apostello (I send)? In the preface of the New King James Bible, we are told that the "literal" meaning of monogenes is "only begotten." Is that true? How often do preachers refer to the verb agapao (to love), contrast it with phileo (to love) and deduce that the text is saying something about a special kind of loving, for no other reason that agapao is used?
All of this is linguistic nonsense.

One of the deciding factors of my Zorbanaic conversion is the realization that this fallacy is very very widely used. It takes in the thought that the root meaning of a word somehow changes its' otherwise regular meaning.

Dave: I have already announced my belief in Greek primacy in another topic.

The argument used by D.A. Carson is far from "false" by any means. Roots can't give words meaning other than what the normal meaning of a word is. This is problematic for proponents of Peshitta primacy since much of the research done invovles a dogmatic use of etymology.

For example, our English word "goodbye" comes from the anglo-saxon term for "god is with you" but that doesn't mean that the "literal meaning" of goodbye is "god is with you" since it is never used in that context any more. By nitpicking the context the otherwise clear message is lost behind a meaning that we hammer onto it.

Rob Wrote:[quote=D.A. Carson in "Exegetical Fallacies" p. 28]
One of the most enduring errors, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word. How many times have we been told that because the verbal cognate of apostolos (apostle) is apostello (I send)? In the preface of the New King James Bible, we are told that the "literal" meaning of monogenes is "only begotten." Is that true? How often do preachers refer to the verb agapao (to love), contrast it with phileo (to love) and deduce that the text is saying something about a special kind of loving, for no other reason that agapao is used?
All of this is linguistic nonsense.

The fallacy you quote here is referring to Greek Primacists' arguments. Hence my question , "Did false arguments used by Greek Primacists convince you Greek Primacists were right ?"

If Greek Primacists are wrong to use root meanings to define words and Peshitta Primacists are wrong to use root meanings to define words, how does this argument move you from Peshitta Primacy to Greek Primacy, since both parties use the same argument and method ?